Labour Make Use Of The Rwanda Scheme.....

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpe388jy2n3o

So not a total waste then.

[cashier]

They don't seek to be returned, they are being sent back.

[naomi24]

untitled, //where did they say "rubber stamp"??//

 

This is where your arguments become peurile nit-picking.  I used the words 'rubber stamp' - they simply said they're expecting 60,000 out of the 100,000 to be processed to be given permission to stay.   I hope that's easier for you to understand.

[Untitled]

that figure is a prediction which comes from The Sun naomi... it is not something that the government has announced so i'm afraid your claim is wrong

[naomi24]

It actually comes from The Refugee Council, a UK-based charity, untitled, and has been published by several reputable outlets.  As far as I'm aware the government hasn't refuted it.

[THECORBYLOON]

Last year there were 93,296 applications and of those, 62,336 were granted.

Was the, "rubber stamping" applied to them?

[Old_Geezer]

Well done Labour for salvaging a tiny bit of value from the millions they wasted by scrapping the scheme and encouraging more illegal immigrants to chance their life.

[Old_Geezer]

"Was the, "rubber stamping" applied to them?"

My suspicion is, very very very likely. Did they all come directly from an unsafe country ?

[Gromit]

// yes they used something from the Rwanda scheme, thanks for the conformation! //

That something is the hire of a plane. The British government have a contractor for chartering aircraft. Presumably we have a contract with them and the change of resident in No.10 does not invalidate the contract. The new Government need a plane so they have chatered a flight. The new destination, Vietnam, is 2000 miles further away, so presumbly the cost is different and maybe the type of aircraft used.

Trying to portray that they plan to use a plan to deport people in an aircraft as being the same failed plan as the Conservatives is laughable, and a bit desperate.

[ToraToraTora]

not me gromit, the BBC:

"Dozens of failed asylum seekers from Vietnam are to be sent back to the country on Wednesday, using resources the last government had earmarked for the Rwanda scheme."

[Gromit]

OG

// Well done Labour for salvaging a tiny bit of value from the millions they wasted by scrapping the scheme //  

The £700 million was wasted by the Conservative Government. 4 people went to Rwanda, and there is no evidence that when it was announced 2 years ago, that anyone was deterred by it.

// scrapping the scheme and encouraging more illegal immigrants to chance their life. //

Since Sunak took charge 50,000 have come across the channel illegally. A similar number under his predecessors. Labour have been in power for 20 days.  Has there been a significant increase in the number of illegals making the journey in the fortnight since Starmer announce the Rwanda gimmick had ended?

 

and encouraging more illegal immigrants to chance their life.

[Old_Geezer]

The £700 million was clearly not wasted by the Conservative Government. They weren't the ones finding ways to delay and stop it. All they are responsible for is not having the guts to either tell the ECHR what it can do with it's ridiculous judgements, or better still withdrawing from accepting their "authority".

 

There was plenty of evidence that it did deter, ask the Irish government, and that was before anyone had even been allowed to go due to interference. Were it to have started the evidence would be there for you to ask for.

 

The money was wasted at the point the new government broke the deal and Rwanda said, "Thank you very much; that was money for nothing, please call again for anything similar". 

 

No doubt you can provide figures of recent crossings, but clearly a few days isn't enough for evidence as to what is happening; but common sense tell us exactly what the consequence of not sending anyone elsewhere will be. It's hardly rocket science.

[ToraToraTora]

bang on OG, it was gromitesque trobsicites that stopped all the ideas. Then they had the cheek to moan that the problem wasn't solved.

[Untitled]

anybody who believes that the rwanda policy was a serious one intended to actually solve the problem is seriously misinformed. it was designed to be incompatible with human rights law so that the tories could build up public anger against the ECHR. 

[Hymie]

The true cost of the Rwanda plan (to the UK tax payers) – £10 billion.

 

[ToraToraTora]

right oh slimey Himie!

[Hymie]

In making those statements within the HoC, if Yvette Cooper (Home Secretary) is lying that the costs were projected to reach £10 billion, this would be a serious breach of the ministerial code.

 

Not that the Tories bothered much about the ministerial code while they were in power for 14 years.

[Hymie]

In other words, she’d have to resign.

[New Judge]

“The true cost of the Rwanda plan (to the UK tax payers) – £10 billion.”

I think you will find the Home Secretary put the cost at £700m:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1rw47l2xxgo

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/22/failed-rwanda-deportation-scheme-cost-700m-says-yvette-cooper#:~:text=Cooper%20said%20the%20%C2%A3700m,the%20election%20on%204%20July.

That includes, she says, the cost of 1,000 Civil Servants working on the scheme. She doesn’t say they were hired especially for the scheme, nor that they have since been dismissed. So we can assume if they were not employed on the Rwanda scheme, they would have been doing something else.

I think where her costs of £10bn came in was the cost of keeping people who were unable to claim asylum (courtesy of the Illegal Immigration Bill) and unable to be sent elsewhere (principally courtesy of the ECHR). She said that processing these people’s asylum claims, as Labour intend to do, would enable them either to be sent elsewhere or remove the cost of their keep from the taxpayer. What she didn’t quite explain is how those whose claims had failed would be removed and where to and how those whose claims were successful would suddenly become self-sufficient. Still, can’t expect too much, I suppose.